Is the Puff Bar Targeted at Reducing the Addiction Potential of ELECTRIC CIGARETTES?
Puff Bar is a great alternative to a traditional ice cream treat since it has none of the cons connected with an ice cream treat. Puff Bar is really a simple sweet treat, that makes it a great alternative to traditional ice cream treats. Puff Bar is made with only natural flavors, so it’s a healthy alternative for those who are watching their diet. Moreover, Puff Bar is easy to make, you can make it normally as you want and never have to prepare the ice cream each and every time. It’s great for kids and for parties because it’s easy to serve.
Puff Bar is a relatively new product, which was developed to test people a reaction to herbal cigarette alternatives. When we smoke we are exposing ourselves to a large number of chemicals, some are good, some are bad. Puff Bar will not contain any artificial flavors, colors or nicotine Vape Pens and in addition has zero calories. The manufacturers declare that Puff Bar doesn’t really taste like cigarettes since it is made from completely natural ingredients including fruits, sugar and mint.
One of the biggest issues in public health today is obesity and diet. Because of this many companies are developing products that help people stay trim. The Puff Bar is one of these products, they’re currently marketing them under names like Puff Nosh, Pop Tart and Popcorn Squeeze. The makers of Puff Bar claim that individuals who use their product to lose weight can easily do so if they only need to take with you the small product. The makers of Puff Bar are aware that since public health officials have been calling to find out more on the dangers of empty e-cigarette cartridges it’s pretty clear that the public wants to know more about Puff Bar and whether or not it poses a risk to public health.
By calling their product a “reusable” cartridge they’re in direct violation of the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Based on the FDA any e-cigarette that contains nicotine must contain an insert which allows you to put it into the mouth area, which means that you can’t put it into your pocket or purse to go on it where ever you may go. If the product also offers an extinguisher it is also in violation of regulations. The reason being that since there is no ash made by a puff Bar e Cigarette it is not a valid device to use to refill an existing e cigarette with nicotine or to smoke a different one.
Because the maker of Puff Bar realized this their lawyers have sent letters to the companies that produce puff bars claiming they have marketed their product in a manner that is illegal. As well as sending cease and desist orders from the lawyers have demanded that the manufacturers cease and desist distribution of Puff Bar of Cigarettes and refund customers money. The letters request that they no longer make reference to their product as a “smoke machine”. Instead the company’s lawyers have suggested that they call it a “tobacco alternative”.
What the legal team did isn’t entirely surprising. The problem with Puff Bar is that its e Cigarette product is itself a loophole in the law. This is because there is currently no law mandating that electronic cigarettes need to include warning labels or advertising. The inclusion of a “smoking alternative” could open up a flood of lawsuits that would be filed by municipalities that wanted to charge cigarette companies for introducing another polluting type of tobacco in to the marketplace.
As well as the possibility of a lawsuit being filed by municipalities the inclusion of flavored e cigarettes available to buy could result in a reduction in the sale of tobacco by non-smokers. Research suggests that smokers who are presented with non-tobacco flavored e-cigs will replace those cigarettes with those that contain nicotine. By making tobacco less accessible to teenagers and to younger generations, this could substantially reduce the number of people who die from tobacco related illnesses. Also it seems that the addition of the puff bar to several tobacco-flavored electronic cigarettes could lead smokers to seek out “real” cigarettes rather than rely so heavily on an alternative solution that may not supply them with nicotine.
It appears that the UK government may have a point. There is currently no requirement of tobacco companies to include warning labels on the products nor is there a ban on flavoured tobacco or e-liquid. The only thing that these products all have in common is that they can not cause cancer or other diseases. It looks a question of economics that’s being overlooked. A solution like the puff bar would seem such as a much better way to make money for tobacco companies because they are essentially creating products that are more difficult to consume, which means that fewer people will purchase them.